Technical Articles

The Lie Detectors UK Examiners utilize the most recent research and applies latest techniques and therefore remains up to date in moving the sector forward with a greater pace. Even the American Polygraph Association conference, which will be held in the month of September this year in the USA will probably be attended by us and now we can know why research is so crucial by reading below.

The research on scientific research has been conducted by people ever since 1917 after the Harvard psychologist William Marston released his very first lie detection experiment. Ever since the experimentation was printed, thousands of posts and experimental reports has been published on the matter showing the strengths, weakness and potential of the polygraph testing. Many major practices and concepts about polygraph testing have been developed over time and the names like Keeler, Larson, Reid and Backster has been associated with that. Each of the individual has made very significant contributions in their respective fields. Their contributions to the field have played a significant part in the growth of polygraphy. When a new idea is launched that seems promising, it is extremely important to take a long and an objective look at it and find out exactly how effective it really is. This process of studying it in detail and determining its possible is known as research. Exactly what the definition of study suggests in a practical sense is that polygraph research shows us our ability of just how good we could become and what we must do to attain it. If the study isn’t performed properly, it could lead to the failure of this theory in its initial stage. Hence a lengthy and detailed research is need to before moving ahead with any conclusion.

A Few Research Evaluated Theories

In order to inspect the worthiness of a theory, scientists frequently perform experiments to determine it. During an initial stage of a theory, it’s only an interesting idea. At this point, nobody can forecast the actual value of it. To assess such a concept, the best way is to test it in an impartial and objective experimental environment. By way of instance, when control/comparison question evaluation (CQT) had been a concept and it was suggested , the only method to ascertain its possible was by analyzing it into experimental conditions. It was essential that the experiment should be tested by people besides the one who created it, i.e. people besides John Reid, that was the developer as the other folks did not have anything to do with the experimentation. Many scientists tested the concept and concluded it to be accurate. This affirmed the concept of Reid’s.

Some Research Evaluates Strategies

A research is not a justification since it’s merely a development of a concept in its initial phase. It helps to spot the very best test formats, query types, instrumentation’s and scoring systems and also helps to ascertain how great the concept is. By way of instance, a number of experiments have shown that Zone of Comparison Test (ZCT) can be 96% true which means that if DI and NDI choice is made, these choices are 96% accurate. This does not mean that whenever you and I do a ZCT we could claim 96% precision. We can just maintain such degree of accuracy once we do everything exactly the exact same manner such as the researcher did including the pretext interview, query formulation and sequencing, numerical grading processes, etc.. If one of these values have been changed, the precision will not support. Conversely, if research proves that the testing procedure is not particularly true, we cannot say that it is much better compared to another.

How Polygraph Research Benefits You and Me

Research literature, i.e. reading and understanding scientific experiments assist to move from choice to reality. It provides us the choice to pick and choose amongst different procedures and approaches and to identify the best way available. Once we are able to accomplish that, there are several functional benefits that accrue to people

Knowing the Polygraph research literature assists with the Work

Employing the greatest valid technique in situations helps to obtain high overall accuracy. The method we heard at the polygraph school might not be the most legitimate, however if we’re serious about our occupation, the study could say that it is time to modify.

We become better expert witness after knowing the polygraph research literature

When you are testifying at trial, the court becomes impressed by experts who base their views on the objectives and scientific study and you are in a position to support your opinion with such info. Possessing such knowledge provides you with a credible professional opinion.

Knowing polygraph research literature makes us successful in the private industry

A lot of folks don’t understand this, but severe scientists are performing polygraph study for a long time. Most of this research has been printed in most prestigious scientific journals. Once they realize that this study literature exists, they begin to rely on you for advice, thereby providing you with a more valuable asset than before.

A polygraph examination isn’t a fail or pass dilemma like failing your exams in college. You won’t ever fail a lie detector exam based on how educated or intelligent you are and simply put a Lie Detector Test is easy to pass providing your telling the truth.

ANS and Awareness

Polygraph technology functions by measuring physiological alterations in the human body including fluctuations in breathing, blood flow, blood pressure and sweat. The ANS controls bodily functions but you are not conscious of it. By way of instance, you are not usually actively breathing or aware of the heart beating but those functions will continue whether you are awake or asleep.

Dishonesty is indicated when the ANS enter defensive style repeatedly, responding to a specific test statement or query. If the polygraph examiner concludes that deception is evident by this response to a couple of queries, you will have’failed’ the test.

Deception Indicated

When deception is signalled it doesn’t necessarily mean you have lied. But constant research and test results have revealed that 90 to 95 percent of subjects having this kind of response have lied. Or they had withheld relevant information associated with what they were requested, something we call guilty knowledge.

In the United Kingdom lie detector examinations are mainly used

In recruitment, to screen potential candidates

By private individuals who were falsely accused of something

by authorities to test the honesty of witnesses or suspects

For monitoring criminal offenders when they are released on license

When cheating is suspected at a relationship

In company when a couple of employees are suspected of fraud or theft

Withholding vital information might cause an examiner to determine you can’t be excluded as a defendant. You might well have told the truth but your ANS understands you are not divulging something that is quite relevant. Usually if a topic withholds information, it’s because they do not wish to incriminate themselves. In the event you fail a lie detector test due to data advice, and police are concerned, the outcome will probably make them explore you in greater depth.

Everything you can do in case you fail a lie detector exam

You can confess, or if you withheld information disclose it. Or if you’re feeling the test wasn’t administered correctly you are able to take another test. Generally speaking honesty is the best policy because one way or another qualified APA and UKPA Polygraph Examiners will locate the truth. Call Lie Detectors UK today on 0207 859 4960 to discuss your case with a qualified examiner or contact us by clicking here.

How the brain reveals if someone is lying

Lie detector tests are on the rise. When someone is lying, the gnawing uncertainty is unbearable- you will need to know the reality.

The issue with lying is that it destroys trust, leaving you unable to believe anything someone tells you. How do you tell if someone is lying?

The 2nd most frequent reason after money problems (which can also involve lying), is betrayal resulting in’difficulties in establishing honesty in a relationship’.

Dishonesty in a relationship can influence every area of your life; in drugs, to theft, paternity, recruitment, insurance claims and misuse, lying can lead to considerable damage to the several unique sorts of relationships we build during our lifetimes.

According to psychologytoday.com, lying causes so much destruction because’the degree of our religion is shattered and the next period we find it more difficult to trust’.

Worse still,’it is a deliberate decision to fabricate the fact…. . Lies may also build on themselves, leading to larger lies’…. . And’a false sense of fact…after lying about exactly the identical thing, we might even come to think that it is true’. Thus, the impact on the recipient of this lies could be enormous.

We frequently have some type of gut instinct that something isn’t appropriate when we are being lied to, but until you have evidence, there’s absolutely not any way to be sure. Because of this, uncertainty and mistrust could linger on in associations for years, decades even, resulting in bitterness, resentment and wider relationship breakdown as others become involved.

Could you test if someone is lying?

People rarely acknowledge that they are lying. Filled with a feeling of foreboding and also a deep nagging uncertainty, it extends to the point at which you need to understand the truth, 1 way or the other.

Thus, during the ages, people have developed lie detector tests to locate evidence to prove if their instincts were right.

Witnesses have always been an option, in certain scenarios. From the early days of lie discovery, witnesses might be called to shred some light on the matter in hand, nevertheless this was merely 1 person’s word against another, so there was still a necessity to have tangible proof. And lie discovery evolved. It was an Ancient Greek physician, Erasistratus, that initially used signs by the body to uncover deception, when’Antiochus’ heartbeat, and its own tumultuous rhythm’ jeopardized his love for his step-mother.

From then on, lie-detector tests have employed subtle, innate signals from your system to uncover lying. In a red-hot poker onto the tongue in the contrary, to swallowing dry bread or rice sniffing out dishonesty through odor.3 People throughout history have found that the body can’t lie. If you wish to discover if a person is lying- the body will inform you.

Now, thankfully, we’ve moved on from choking and burns, to difficult, scientific, and factual evidence which can be gained from neuroscience.

What’s neuroscience?

Neuro scientists study how our nervous system functions. Our nervous system is the most significant, complicated network in our body made up of our brain, spinal nerves and cords.

The way your mind will show if someone is lying?

Behaviour rips our nervous system to actions. One of our responses, create chemical and electrical signals as the nervous system circuit has to do the job. Moving round our body, the signals can show us our mind, and other parts of the human own body, react to a variety of different emotions and responses, including lying.

If you lie, the mind must work overtime. Thus, a fair mind and a brain that is dishonest will show various levels of action, when tracked.

The region of the brain responsible for language has to respond and build a plausible lie in exactly the same time, hence the reason to the recipient, a lie not entirely is logical. In addition, the individual lying is now in danger of allowing their dishonesty slide.

Therefore, now, your system is both reacting and preparing for potential danger. So the amygdala, ACC (anterior angulate cortex), in addition to both the thalamus and the caudate must get to work to prepare lots of different parts of the human body for impending danger.

We have all seen that in action. The man or woman lying, focused on the lie, even believes they seem normal, the listener nevertheless, can listen and view hallucinations — so also can science.

When someone is lying, scientists could measure the heightened activity in the brain and there are additional tell-tale chemical signals going off round the entire body, at the exact same time also.

What the body does when someone is lying

The amygdala is the exceptional body guard. Unstoppable once published, it’s our alarm program to prepare our body to run or fight an incoming threat. Therefore when a person is lying, although they think their fear is concealed – the amygdala will reveal their true colours.

Releasing adrenaline into the body, Someone who is lying will exhibit:

— Increased heart-rate

— tensing of the muscles

— a change in breathing pattern

— increased awareness

— vasoconstriction

And many other internal changes like the release of sugar, the elimination of blood from organs that are essential to guard the brain and mood swings as the fight mechanism induces indigestion reactions, followed with a return to calm as the chemicals subside.

An attractive, efficient system which cannot be tampered with, neuroscience means we no longer have to call witnesses or physically hurt individuals to finally discover the truth once we suspect somebody is lying.

Now we’ve polygraph tests — also called lie detector tests — the contemporary, evidence-based way to finally prove whether a person is lying or not. Used broadly through the planet, in the U.K. to America, polygraph tests can offer a way for private, company and government services to release that nagging uncertainty and begin to mend relationships.

Whether you are having issues with dishonesty in: infidelity, paternity, recruiting, insurance claims, fraud, fraud, we can provide a quick and simple solution, to bring an end to this matter, once and for all.

Our experienced and qualified staff, work with compassion and care to help you resolve any situation. Speak to one of our friendly staff today on 0207 859 4960

Among my favorite things about polygraph is that each test we do is like a baby scientific experiment. We have our subject. We expose them to different stimuli (questions) and record physiology which can then be subjected to numeric rules of interpretation. When we do this process well, we improve our ability to make credibility decisions by leaps and bounds. Human judgement of credibility is slightly better than chance (54%). If left to our own devices, without the polygraph equipment we might as well pull out an 8-Ball toy and ask it if someone is being honest. But with a polygraph we reach into the 80s and 90% range for assessing veracity. I believe that the scientific method can be used in our personal practice to inform decision making and to maximize our effectiveness.

I want to use an example that has been on my mind for some time. I use the example just because it is something I have thought about, measured, and analyzed (scientific method). To be clear I am not an academic and I know that there are people far superior to me that need to conduct the research in the field of polygraph. I appreciate and lean on these great minds each and every day. Yet, I would encourage us all to be curious, to ask questions, and to test our assumptions. But the trick is not to confirm what we already believe… but to challenge our beliefs. Learning comes from expanding the boundaries of what we know, not continuing in the “same old same old same old” because “that is what someone told me” in basic academy. I want to set the stage a little bit here with a classic psychological experiment that was conducted many years ago by a research named Dr. Peter Wason.

Here is the gist. People were given a short series of 3 numbers. They were then encouraged to make guesses as to the rules that guided the formulations of those three numbers by formulating additional 3 number series and getting feedback on their guess. Researches would then give dichotomous yes/no answers to the inquiries of the subjects. Let’s say that we have 3 subjects that all get to participate together and learn from one another (building from one another’s questions). For example: JD (subject) is introduced to the objective of the game (figure out the underlying rules that guide the number series) and is then given the numbers 2, 4, 6. JD is a smart guy and immediately catches on and says 8, 10, 12. Straight face researchers says “yes.” JD then takes another stab at it to test his hypothesis and says 30, 32, 34. Once again his approach is validated. JD goes on to formulate various versions of progressing even numbers +2 from one another. Each time the researcher confirms his approach is correct. At this point JD is totally confident. This test was silly.

The solution is so simple. It is just progressing series of even numbers, right? Well let’s try something new. Ted is given the same instructions and he follows JD’s path initially, but then he tweaks it just slightly. He asks about a series such as 10, 20, 30. The research indicates this pattern fits within the rules of the original progression. JD could have confirmed dozens of versions of even numbers increased by +2 and felt really confident about his conclusion; but in one fell swoop Ted has destroyed JD’s original theory. He is on to something else. He then tries something different to gain more information. He checks out a different series 20, 30, 10. The research informs him that does not fit the rules. Perfect, Ted’s hypothesis that it has to be even increasing numbers of equal distance must be correct. Then comes along Sally. Sally is given the same assignment but the first series she tried was 10, 11, 12. The research confirm this fits within the rules. What did we learn? Odd numbers can be used as well. She tries 11, 13, 15. Again, confirmed. So Sally is an out of the box thinker and she tries something totally off the cuff. What about 13, 28, 111. “Yes,” the researcher confirms, this fits the pattern. She tries 111, 28, 13. “No.” You get the idea. So what is the rule that Dr. Wason had developed? A list of numbers in ascending order. It does not matter the number, odd or even, distance between that number, etc. But it must have three numbers, and they all must ascend in order. Very few subjects were able to discover the underlying rules, why? Confirmation Bias- the tendency for people to reinforce preexisting beliefs. The mind has to manage a lot of information and one of the ways it has become efficient at its task is to filter all things into categories (schemas).

The primary rule of operation is that we confirm things we already think and believe. That is why two people can read the same article about a mass shooting and one person will walk away feeling like we need to ease up rules on concealed weapons so that we can protect ourselves and others from crazies; and another person reading the same article will walk away believing that all guns should be banned from general citizenry. The process of repeatedly making observations of the same phenomena is not sufficient to equate The Scientific Method. Karl Popper, believed that the core of The Scientific Method is Empiricism where we look to falsify our hypothesis in order to expand our knowledge using observation and measurement. That should be sufficient background to launch into a discussion about you and I as we sit in our polygraph suite. Much of the research that is done in the field is going to be done by academics that specialize in such. It is possible for us, as polygraph examiners, to learn key issues from academics that perhaps do not perform polygraphs on a day to day basis. For that matter we can potentially learn from research in other areas of credibility assessment (recent article from Eye Detect emphasizing the importance of not asking passive questions like did you lie in that questionnaire, in favor of direct questions about the area of concern like have you used any illicit substances in the last 5 yrs being a good example). So let me personalize this a bit to my own observations in my polygraph suite. I am a fairly new examiner. I completed my basic training in 2015. In that there were no polygraph schools in my state, I left my family and stayed with friends of friends in the area where the school was being held. In that I did not know anyone in the area and my natural inclination in new situations is to hyper analyze, I spent a lot of those three months reading polygraph articles, books (such as Fundamentals of Polygraph Practice, by Krapohl & Shaw which is a must read for all new examiners; and Credibility Assessment: scientific research and application by Raskin, Honts & Kircher). When I was in basic academy we were told (unverified hypothesis) we were the first class to ever receive instruction in Relative Line Length (RLL) for scoring pneumos as part of our primary training. We of course covered feature scoring as well, but most the focus was on RLL. My mentor had sent me charts to practice scoring (N-60). All of these charts had been scored by him previously. After scoring out the first 20 charts there were 4 examples of charts where I had scored out Inconclusive (IC) and he had scored out either a pass/fail (conclusive). That is 20% of that small sample of charts resulted in an IC, where my mentor had a definitive outcome. I found that to be disconcerting, and the only difference between the way we both scored the charts was the use of RLL vs Feature Scoring. So, I abandoned RLL and went on to score out the remaining 40 charts using feature scoring. In those additional 40 charts only 2 had the same issue where I had scored it out as IC and he had a conclusive decision. That is 5% of the larger sample.

A pattern was created in my mind. RLL tends to drift a chart in the direction of IC. I have repeated this opinion often when interacting with other examiners and felt strongly that this was FACT! But at the same time, I am generally a huge advocate for computer algorithms and lean on them in favor of hand scoring. This creates a huge internal conflict for me over how to make decisions, especially when there is cross talk between my hand score and the computer and whether to use RLL scoring algorithms or features. After attending a great Advance Academy training in Boise, where they gave some very convincing statistics on RLL, I decided to venture back into this arena with greater Empiricism. In place of a handful of charts, scored when I had literally just learned how to do it, I decided to start tracking a large swath of information for each chart I collected. Over the last year I have collected data on hundreds of my own charts.

The format was developed for multiple reasons, but I want to focus on RLL for the purposes of this conversation. I also need to add for this next section that I stumbled into a project that Ray Nelson is working on and I was able to coordinate with a handful of other examiners tracking the information above, so as I talk numbers for the next section this is cumulative of the various examiners that participated in that study. The overt purpose for my creating this format was to look at the effects of RLL on decisions. Remember, my initial assumption based on 20 charts back in basic academy was that RLL had a tendency to draw charts in the direction of IC. Here is what I found when using a much larger data set, multiple examiners, and more experience. I was WRONG! I have preached my perspective frequently with other examiners and as comments in trainings as I stood on my soap box talking about cautions of RLL. Here are the quick numbers on it. The group of us had collected a total of 483 charts. Of those 115 were feature scored and the vast majority were scored using RLL (368). Of those 368 charts 15% (56) were IC based on HCT. So inconclusive were relatively rare overall and slightly higher than what is reported in the MetaAnalytic Survey of polygraph research that reported roughly an 11% IC rate. I stated previously in my little sample of 20 charts there were 4 examples (20%) where the HCT created an inconclusive result when using RLL. It is problematic to make conclusions based of small samples because variations are overrepresented. It is important to gather as much data as possible. Research with a single examiner is also less valuable than multiple examiners because idiosyncrasies of the examiner may influence the numbers… but that being stated the point is not to publish formal research based on your individual experience, but to use the scientific method to analyze your process. What was found with this larger more methodical look at the dynamic of RLL pulling charts into IC showed that this happened 21% of the time. So at this point I can pat myself on the back for coming to the correct conclusion (like JD in my earlier example). But wait, when I expand my scope and look at it from another perspective (like Susan from my earlier example), there is something else that I can learn! 38% of all the inconclusive charts actually resolved using RLL. Almost 2x as many charts were resolved using RLL scoring than were created (my originally often preached bias). Should I be embarrassed about my previously held, and oft articulated, belief. I would argue “no.” Because we are all wrong about something. The danger is in not knowing what we are wrong about.

The scientific method gives us an empirical way to peer under the hood and check our perspectives and opinions. Those that are self-conscious and worried about their work product are not the examiners that make me nervous. It is the confident self-assured examiner that knows for sure every outcome is correct every time. I am not saying to be timid or not trust your charts, the odds are in your favor, but let’s be curious as we try to make decisions about how we do what we do. Just the other day I was at our local polygraph association semi-annual meeting. We were reviewing the most recent polygraph journal, scoring out some charts together, and connecting. During the discussion someone inquired as to the value of a photoplethysmograph (PPG/PLE) as a polygraph component. More specifically he wanted to know how often the PPG was able to resolve an IC chart. He was debating if it is worth investing financially to purchase one. The research on PPG is incontrovertible. It is a great asset in decision making, and is 2nd only to the EDA in providing diagnostic information regarding credibility. That is pretty exciting stuff. But the opinions in the room varied widely as to if and how valuable it is as a tool. One member in particular talked about his frustration with the discordant reactions between the EDA and the PPG. The assumption seemed to be (if I did not overgeneralize what he was trying to communicate) that they virtually always contradict one another. That is good questions. It sparks curiosity. Now what do you do with that curiosity. I would propose that a simple spread sheet that tracked positive versus negative reactions in all CQ/RQ positions comparing the PPG to the EDA (most diagnostic feature by far as beautifully described by Raymond Nelson in our last journal). If this examiner were to track that information for, let’s say, at least 100 charts. He would then have a wealth of information about his assumption. The numbers would easily tell the story. With a few quick calculations he would have a clear answer to the question.

That stated it is important to recognize to generalize the information it would be important to have a large sample from multiple examiners; otherwise it may just recreate the same confirmation bias demonstrated in the initial example. My invitation to all of us is that we be curious. We track areas that spark our interest. And we let the numbers tell the story. Don’t be embarrassed by errors, those are what make our theories strongest. The profession becomes better by individual examiners paying attention to their beliefs, testing them out, and adapting accordingly IN THEIR OWN POLYGRAPH SUITE! Professional researchers will always have a jump on us. We should pay attention to what they have to say. But we do not have to blindly follow. They learned the information through the same process that we can. So, let’s get out there and become micro scientific researchers of our own practice, looking to see where we can prove our opinions as incorrect with empirical analysis. Quite frankly, it can be exhilarating to learn something new based on your own efforts.

Workplace theft in London and elsewhere in the united kingdom has to be managed sensitively, its costing businesses across the UK over £70 billion annually according to the NFA (National Fraud Agency) it is a growing problem.

As providers of polygraph services we’re specialists in combating theft in the office together with the minimal of unpleasant consequences.

Worker trust
No matter the situation, trust is an imperative factor between company and worker. If it’s apparent that you don’t have faith in a worker’s honesty you won’t receive the best from them. But if a worker is working contrary to the interests of your business and its branding you have got a massive issue.

Dishonesty can take many forms. It may be that an employee using date is misusing it. Or maybe they are embezzling cash, stealing from petty cash, or taking equipment or products without permission. No matter the situation, they’re in violation of your code of conduct and policies. What do you do to fight office theft in London with no leading to a whole raft of infringements in employment law?

Handling office theft in London
Left unchallenged theft in the workplace can span many decades. If the theft is minor most companies overlook it rather than become embroiled in the consequences of dismissal that could lead to an employment tribunal.

Employers have discovered to their cost that hidden cameras and any sort of coercion to receive evidence is fraught with legal complications. Nowadays workers are more aware of their rights than any time ever.

Nevertheless, minor stealing made to run its path can often result in significant fraud and information theft which can harm your company immeasurably.

Periodic lie detector tests
Any suspicions you have associated with theft at work demands proof. Periodic lie detector tests provide independent reports which may stop this criminal activity in its tracks.

By implementing them within your risk management plan you can achieve several items including:

Getting the employee to confess during a pre-test interview
Assessing the offender
Obtaining evidence that may be allowed in any resulting tribunal
Earning Different employees aware of how their colleague has let them down
Bear in mind that workers must agree to take lie detector tests. You can acquire such agreement by sending a memo out seeking their arrangement and getting them to sign it. It is possible to explain that random tests will take place as part of new risk management processes. Honest employees won’t object to them. They may be conscious that a colleague is involved in dishonest activity which reflects poorly on all of them.

Other preventative measures
It’s crucial to maintain accurate records of lost money or things and suspicious data handling. You should also look out for odd behaviour in a worker such as:

Reluctance to take holiday time because of them
Excessive ordering of office stationery and other supplies
Non-reconciliation of petty cash or other ordinary accounting
Workers accessing data that Isn’t necessary to their function

Include a lie detector test clause in employment contracts for new workers. This manner you have their consent to conduct them.

If you’d like more details about how polygraph services can subtly combat workplace theft in London and nationally please contact us. As fraud and theft increase more companies are using innovative methods to counteract this and to send an example to all staff..

Its very important for a skilled polygraph examiner to gain a good rapport with his clients, this article discusses the reasons why, Lie Detectors UK employ fully qualified APA examiners who have been trained in the importance of gaining rapport with clients.

One purpose of polygraph testing is to obtain a complete, truthful, and accurate account of what happened through interview, as well as specific information about the event being investigated. Rapport is an essential element to achieve this goal. In the course of an interview, rapport must fulfil its primary objective: to favour good communication between sender and receiver of information, that is to say, between polygrapher and interviewee.

To date, there are many known tactics to establish rapport, such as treating the interviewee with respect or explaining the full procedure. This text intends to illustrate the alternative use of the technique devil ́s advocate. Regularly, this technique is used to evaluate the strength and veracity of a testimony or authentic beliefs individuals have about something.

What is Rapport?

Over the years, the term rapport has been given to a person’s ability to identify with someone and share their feelings, traditions, tastes, interests, customs, beliefs, ideals, and values at a given time. According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary (Merriam-Webster, 2016), rapport “is a state of sympathy that allows influence or communication”. In general terms, it is the environment generated between two people and all the elements that can influence the development of their interactions and can be established in different ways. In the case of an interview, rapport must be maintained and remain until the end of the encounter. The establishment of rapport makes it possible to influence behaviour and thus persuade other human beings to make decisions. In criminal investigations, it is useful because in conducting investigative interviews or polygraph evaluations, it helps generate confidence in the interviewee with the purpose of obtaining quality information that allows the resolution of a crime.

How Rapport is generated

Morgan & Cogger (1982) suggest that an affectionate greeting, a firm hand- shake, and a proper presentation of self will help to establish rapport. However, the reality is that not all interviewees are cooperative, sometimes the interviewer will face interviewees with a hostile and uncooperative attitude. In this scenario, the interviewer should not be affected by their performance, and as Acevedo (2007) mentions, “the first minutes of the interview are decisive to achieve success,” so decisions must be made.

To generate rapport, we must consider the basic needs of the interviewee, for ex- ample, we should explain the ground rules like what they can do inside the interview room, or their right to have basic needs such as going to the toilet or access to clean drinking water. Boyle and Vullierme (2019) suggest the following:

a) Identify yourself and explain what the roles will be during the interview.

b) Explain the motive of the interview clearly and precisely.

c) Explain how and what the interview will consist of.

d) Explain their rights.

e) Instruct the interviewee that they can ask any questions in case of doubts, or in case they need anything (going to the toilet, drinking water).

This should be done in a clear, understand- able, open, and respectful way.

Other tactics to consider are the following:

a) Decrease the tension in the person being evaluated. This can be achieved through trivial questions such as: How ́s your day going? How do you feel today? What do you think of the climate? Did you have trouble getting here? and so forth.

b) Empathy: Let them know that the interview procedure can cause stress or nervousness, and that this condition is normal. For example: I under- stand that you feel nervous about being here because it’s something unknown to you, but don’t worry, when it’s your first time doing some- thing, we can feel anxiety, but as we talk you will see that this feeling dissipates. If during the exam you have any doubt about the process or the questions, let me know so that I can clarify immediately.

c) Interview rules: Indicate the stages of the interview in a clear and precise way. Emphasise mutual respect.

d) Fluid communication: This should be generated from the first moment through the application of open questions to reduce monosyllabic answers like “yes” or “no.”

e) Authority: It must be made clear to the interviewee that we understand

his/her situation, however, he/she must also recognise that authority is solely and exclusively held by the interviewer, in order to avoid problems during the interview.

f) Role: The interviewer must adjust their approach to the mental and emotional ability of the examinee, for example, if the interviewee has an intellectual disability, then the interviewer must avoid technical words, so that they can be understood by the examinee.

Once the above actions have been carried out, it is necessary to identify if rapport has been successfully established. An easy and effective way to do this is through the observation of non-verbal language in a mirroring way, that is, if the interviewer and interviewee match their movements, gestures, tone of voice, and attitudes in a similar way, this means that a good communication has been established and understanding was procured among the participants.

Devils advocate

Textually, this concept refers to a person who defends a position directly or indirectly, as a lawyer may do in a court in defence of their client. Technically, it is the verbal expression of a person with the aim of a message to provoke a debate or test the opposed arguments versed by another person. In this sense, the concept has been applied to the field of identifying a true or deceptive judgement, when the theme is conceptual and not perceptual. These last concepts are intimately related. Both terms refer to cognitive processes that allow us to understand how we perceive reality from an event, and how that event is transformed into experience according to the sensations and perceptions that develop conceptions (conceived ideas) or ideas of thought, “realities subject to experience,” with prejudices, inferences, and biases. Thus, this tactical element makes it possible to evaluate the strength of a judgement, because the latter is a concept attributed to a mental process of the subject according to an idea conceived through the experience and interests of the person, and therefore could not be used to evaluate credibility in police interviews with suspects, because in these scenarios, conceptual truthfulness is not important. In fact, the objective is to examine the lack of veracity about the transgressions of the law which suggests the evaluation of acts and not of thoughts (Leal, Vrij, Mann & Fisher, 2010).

The described tactic above could be exemplified as follows: person one arrives at a meeting with co-worker’s, in place they observe that there is a group of people talking, including the general manager of the company for whom they work and other directors, a scenario that makes them think that it is a good opportunity to express innovative ideas to implement in their work, then secondarily standing out and get a salary increase or to improve their position in the company. When approaching the group, they hear that co- workers are talking about politics, and the candidate will have to make a comment against their own interests to observe the determination and strength of the beliefs and opinions of the group to identify their true political affiliation (Ex. I think the president has done well at his job), and perhaps some members of the group will have a different opinion. Acting this way, subject one will know with this tactic who can be allies without having revealed their political preferences. In this same sense, this technique will serve to develop rapport because it will help to identify related themes and political positions, and therefore will facilitate the communication process that will result in obtaining more objective information.

While this tactic is not useful in a police setting interview to identify truth or deceit, it could be used to generate rapport with interviewees, whether they are witnesses, victims, or suspects, and it could be used in a polygraph test with the same objectives.

Conclusions

As we have noticed, there are various tactics to generate rapport. The use of employing a statement against one’s own interests has two positive effects within an interview process, the first is that it allows assessing the strength and conviction of a belief or manifestation, and the other is a strategy to identify allies can serve to create a good conversation and therefore, rapport, an essential element for good communication and the application of different models of existing investigative interviews, such as the PEACE Model of Investigative Interviewing.

A concise explanation of the Polygraph Test

Whether in the context of conversation, examination report, media contact or courtroom discussion it can be useful to have a well-constructed concise explanation of the polygraph test. A reasonably complete explanation will convey information about the theory of the test along with simple and usable information about psychological and physiological foundations of the test, in addition to information about the test data analysis and expected accuracy of the test. A highly useful explanation will quickly orient a reader or listener to the correct concepts and terminologies, will provide practical and convenient answers to common questions, and may help to deter occasional tendencies to engage in wishful thinking or naive expectations about polygraph testing. Fol- lowing is an example of an explanation of the polygraph test that may be useful to stimulate additional discourse:

Psychophysiological detection of deception (PDD) testing, also known as the polygraph test – sometimes referred to as “lie-detection” as a term of convenience – is a standardized, evidence-based test of the margin of uncertainty or level of confidence surrounding a categorical conclusion of truth-telling or deception. The analytic theory of the polygraph test is that greater changes in physiological activity are loaded at different types of test stimuli as a function of deception or truth-telling in response to relevant target stimuli. Adequately selected polygraph target issues will involve a behavioral act for which an examinee can know unequivocally whether one has engaged in that action.

A polygraph test consists of an of a pretest interview, test data acquisition, and test data analysis phases. Post-test procedures can include other ancillary activities, including additional discussion, testing and investigation. Completion of a polygraph test can take upwards of 90 minutes, and should take place in a controlled environment, so that an examinee can adequately attend to and concentrate on the test topic and test stimuli without distraction. In this way, changes in physiological activity, if they are timely and independent of other observable influence, can be reliably attributed to the test stimuli.

The psychological basis of responses to polygraph test stimuli can be thought of as involving a combination of factors including: attention, cognition, emotion, behavioral conditioning and other resources for self- control. Differences in deception and truth-telling can manifest in patterns of response that can become observable upon repeated iterations of relevant and comparison stimuli. Statistical classifiers can be calculated for observed changes in physiological activity.

Polygraph test data are a combination of physiological proxies that have been shown to correlate significantly with different types of test stimuli as a function of deception or truth telling in response to deception or truth-telling when answering relevant investigation target stimuli. Polygraph recording sensors include respiration activity, electrodermal activity, and cardiovascular sensors in addition to an optional vasomotor activity sensor. Polygraph recording sensors are autonomic – because activity in the autonomic nervous system has been shown to be correlated with differences between deception and truth-telling. Although each of the individual sensors is itself insufficient as a strong probabilistic indicator of deception or truth-telling, each of the different sensors contributes additional information to an optimized structural or statistical model. Standards of practice today require the use of activity recording sensors to help identify faking or countermeasures.

Suitability for polygraph testing re- quires that an individual is functioning reasonably within normal limits in terms of basic physiology, psychology, cognitive functioning or level of development, and language/communication skills. Probabilistic calculations may not apply in normal ways for individuals whose functional characteristics are outside normal limits, or those for whom the basic theory does not reasonably apply. Most persons who can work, drive, attend school, live in the community and function independently are suit- able for polygraph testing.

Analysis of polygraph test data, like other test data, can be accomplished manually or via automated computer algorithm. Test data analysis involves several processes including: feature extraction, numerical transformation and data reduction, use of a likelihood function to calculate a statistical val- ue, and the use of structured rules to parse a categorical test result from the numerical and statistical test data. Whereas manual polygraph test data analysis methods may continue to rely on visual processes, comput- er algorithms offer the advantage of automated reliability. Reliability of manually scored test results may be strengthened when they concur with the results of automated computer scoring algorithms.

Published information indicates that event-specific single-issue poly- graphs can provide point estimate accuracy rates that exceed .90, depending on the test format and other factors. Multiple-issue polygraphs are both statistically and psychologically more complex than single-issue tests, with mean accuracy rates having point estimates that can exceed .80 for some polygraph techniques. Probabilistic estimates for polygraph test results can be calculated for both groups of cases (i.e. the observed frequency of correct or incorrect out- comes with groups of exams), and for individual cases (i.e., what is the likelihood that the data for a particular examination is correct or incorrect). Like other scientific tests, polygraph test results can be thought of as either positive or negative. Understanding and making use of polygraph test results can be thought of as a process of understanding the likelihood or potential for true-positive and true- negative in addition to the potential for false-positive and false-negative outcomes.

Polygraph testing does not detect, or measure, lies or deception per se. Actual detection of lies or deception – with deterministic perfection – and would be immune to both human behavior and random variation. Because deception and truth are not manifest- ed as unique physical phenomena there is no physical or linear measurement for deception or truth. Scientific tests are used quantify phenomena of interest for which neither perfect deterministic observation nor direct physical measurement are possible. For this reason, all scientific test results are fundamentally probabilistic, and are not expected to be infallible. Scientific tests are expected to provide a reproducible quantification of the margin of uncertainty or level of confidence that can be attributed to a test result or conclusion.

This description is by no means the only description or final word on the matter of polygraph testing. It is neither the most complete and comprehensive description nor the most abbreviated description. It is an evolution of numerous other at- tempts to describe the polygraph test in report writing, courtrooms and other areas of discussion with professionals that may wish to understand or make use of polygraph test data or test results. This description starts with an assumption of a blank-slate level understanding, and attempts the lofty goal of quickly and efficiently integrating basic concepts from psychology physiology, decision theory and test theory. Other descriptions of the polygraph are possible, and may at times be more useful than this one. This description is offered with the hope that it may be useful in prompting discussion and stimulating additional advances in written and verbal communication among professionals who use polygraph tests.

Lie Detectors UK, running Polygraph Tests in the UK and the UAE for over six years. Contact us for more information.

Yes we do visit home addresses to conduct Lie Detector Tests however we always prefer an office address when possible as we can control more factors in an office, we have our own offices in Kent where we can offer an appointment at any time of day including weekends. For some people a home address is preferred and makes this whole process easier, especially for a client who suffers with anxiety. We need a distraction free environment in which to conduct a home Lie Detector Test and a table and chairs, although we do carry a portable table and chairs. We like the environment to be free from loud noises and distractions like children or pets running in whilst we are testing as this can affect a home Lie Detector Test.

We would always run a single issue test in a clients home to achieve maximum accuracy for the test and the client, this test comprises of three questions on a single issue, we work with the client to develop questions best suited for the test. We only test on fact, not in intent or on emotion, being a single issue test the questions are very similar and are repeated over multiple charts and an average result taken. The result is either a No Deception being a pass, or a Deception Indicated being a fail or in 4% of cases we can end up with an Inconclusive result which fortunately on a single issue test is very rare.

All Lie Detectors UK Examiners are fully qualified experienced American Polygraph Examiners, we always recommend you check the examiner out first, they should be listed on the APA website here

Get in touch and discuss your case with us in confidence and see if we can help, we have run thousands of tests in a home environment so can advise if yours is suitable. Appointments can be made at a time to suit you including evenings and weekends.

Twenty-four hours before the Lie Detector Test no illegal drugs or alcohol please, if you have any concerns over prescription medication please discuss this with the examiner, very few prescription drugs will actually cause an issue. We will always advise you of the full address and postcode and give you a contact number so you can plan your journey, if you are running late you can directly advise the examiner so he is aware. Do try to have something to eat on the day if possible.

On arrival we complete some paperwork, a consent form and ask you a few questions to ensure we can test you. Then we discuss what will be happening and conduct a pre-test interview discussing the issue at hand and if appropriate talk to your partner, usually asking you to wait in the waiting room. We then discuss questions together formulating three questions on a single issue based on fact, and ensure the questions are fair and that your happy with them, the questions are fully reviewed for total clarity and will be a straightforward yes or no answer only.

All tests are filmed to protect the examiner and yourself, the video isn’t released and is totally confidential. The examiner will discuss the data retention policy with you during the pre-test.

A number of polygraph tests will then be run including a practice test followed by a minimum of three real tests. The result that’s taken is an average of the three tests, same questions that have been practiced are repeated on each chart, usually in a different order. You will then be asked to wait in the waiting room whilst the examiner scores the charts which can take twenty minutes, if a second opinion is required you will be advised at this stage and the result will be given to you followed by a full printed report and email copy if requested.

So you have taken a Lie Detector Test and the results came back as Inconclusive, what does this result really mean and how often do we actually see it. Give me a pound for every time a client says ‘I bet my results are inconclusive, it’s just my luck’ I would be a rich man when working with clients!

In Lie Detector tests an inconclusive result is actually very rare, when using the latest equipment and the latest single issue techniques we have a four percent chance to see inconclusive results. When a result is inconclusive the examiner can run more charts to get a conclusive result but first he must look at other factors that could be causing Lie Detector inconclusive results in the first place. Some good examples are below.

Examiner Experience and Qualifications

You need to ensure the examiner is a member of the American Polygraph Association and in the UK the British Polygraph Association. This ensures they have been trained and have graduated a recognised course and will be using the latest techniques and equipment. An examiner who isn’t a member is very dangerous for the results, they have no regulation and won’t be following any set path. All UK Police and Government Examiners are members of the American Polygraph Association.

Questions

If the questions haven’t been formulated correctly and haven’t been fully discussed with the client first so they fully understand them this can cause an inconclusive lie detector results. I have seen reports from non-qualified examiners and it’s a serious concern as to the questions and techniques they use. An example is we would never test on ‘Do you love your partner?’ Because what really is love, another example would be ‘Do you intend to cheat on your partner?’ Im sure you will agree that intent changes by the hour.

Mental Illness

If someone sitting a Lie Detector Test had a severe mental illness and didn’t disclose this in the pre-test it could cause an issue with a inconclusive Lie Detector results. We are not talking about anxiety or depression here by mental illness like schizophrenia. A good examiner will pick up issues like this.

Countermeasures

If someone is guilty and attempts to cheat a Lie Detector Test and the Examiner isn’t experienced enough to pick this up, then it could affect the results. Fortunately, most things people do is usually very obvious to the trained examiner, as many as one in ten would potentially try and cheat a test to try to alter the results.

Drugs

Either illegal or prescription medication can cause an inconclusive Lie Detector results. Again a qualified and experienced examiner would ask the right questions to ensure this shouldn’t happen unless the person has taken drugs to try to alter the results which we have seen happen a few times. Fortunately, its very rare and usually results in some very odd charts which has us questioning the results and possibly giving a Purposeful Non Co-Operation PNC result. I saw this recently when a client had drunk four strong coffees one after the other and had a resting heart rate of 130 beats per minute and was very jittery. They were honest in why and explained its normal for them to drink so much coffee in one go. I suspect it was because they didn’t want to be tested.

So you can see above some of the reasons we may see inconclusive results on a Lie Detector Test. To alleviate this please make sure you use a company that employs fully qualified and experienced examiners, ask the name of the examiner who will be testing you, make sure they are listed on the APA and BPA websites as current members, even Google their name. I only take a booking when I have spoken to the client first on the phone and ensured that a Lie Detector Test is right for them and explained the process to them.

Jason Hubble the author has been a Polygraph Examiner for over five years, he owns Lie Detectors UK.